Com. v. Constantini, C.
Com. v. Constantini, C. No. 790 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- On Oct. 14, 2014 constables Christian Constantini and Michael Lowman went to Esther Peyton’s home to execute a warrant for unpaid parking tickets registered to her vehicle; Peyton and family repeatedly offered to pay at the residence.
- Constables drew a firearm in the backyard, forced entry, refused to show paperwork or state the amount owed, and declined offered forms of payment (daughter offered cash, check, card, and to go to an ATM).
- Peyton was handcuffed (allegedly too tightly), pushed, pulled backward to the floor, and dragged partly out of the house by her foot; she was placed lying on her side in the transport vehicle without a seatbelt and taken to municipal court.
- Peyton sought medical care that night for wrist numbness and showed bruising; court found family testimony consistent and credible and rejected the constables’ account as contrived and unworthy of belief.
- Defendants were convicted after a non-jury trial of simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, official oppression, and criminal conspiracy; sentences were probationary terms and no-contact orders; convictions appealed and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constables’ statutory and handbook arrest powers justified conduct | Peyton/ Commonwealth: even if constables may arrest for parking tickets, rules and handbook require acceptance of payment when defendant can pay; violent conduct and refusal to accept payment made arrest unlawful or abusive | Constantini/Lowman: warrant authorized taking Peyton to court; their actions were justified to effectuate the warrant and maintain safety | Court: Although constables may arrest for unpaid tickets, Rule 431 and the Constable Handbook limit transport to court when defendant cannot pay; here defendants violated procedures and abused power; convictions stand |
| Whether use of force was lawful under 18 Pa.C.S. §508 and arrest context | Commonwealth: force used was excessive, caused injury, and was not incidental to lawful arrest; established elements of assault and REAP | Defendants: force was necessary because Peyton resisted, was uncooperative, risked harm, dog threatened, and they gave opportunities to pay | Court: Force was excessive and not justified; evidence supported simple assault and REAP convictions |
| Whether conduct amounted to official oppression | Commonwealth: defendants knowingly abused official authority by mistreatment, refusal to allow payment, threats and rough handling | Defendants: acted within official capacity to effectuate warrant; any mistakes were procedural or defensive | Court: Conduct rose to official oppression—knowing illegal mistreatment and denial of rights—convictions supported |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence and credibility assessments | Commonwealth: witnesses’ consistent, corroborated testimony established all elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Defendants: disputed facts, argued witnesses not credible and challenged weight/sufficiency | Held: Trial court’s credibility findings affirmed; evidence was sufficient and verdicts not against the weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2004) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (framework for weight-of-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (mens rea and standards for recklessly endangering another person)
- Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa. Super. 2014) (REAP conviction requires showing conduct placed or may have placed another in danger)
- Commonwealth v. Cordoba, 902 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2006) (principles on REAP and danger standard)
- Commonwealth v. Checca, 491 A.2d 1358 (Pa. Super. 1985) (official oppression statute construed broadly to include aggressive official conduct)